A lesson in how to handle a DUI checkpoint

[RunninInGA]

Suppose it was identified that every lifted 4runner in colorado contained drugs, illegal firearms, or a rapist or all of the above. Would it then be reasonable to pull over and search every Toyota or SUV or lifted truck in Colorado or any other part of the country for that matter? It would be for the greater good of society that we find these items and apprehend those individuals right? Who cares if we inconvenience 10,000 innocent people people to catch 2?

Sounds ridiculous right?

 

[Carl_G]

In that case every lifted 4runner should be pulled over, but not lifted vehicles or toyotas in general.

The "APB" should be for lifted+4runner

 

[RunninInGA]

In that case every lifted 4runner should be pulled over, but not lifted vehicles or toyotas in general.

The "APB" should be for lifted+4runner

Every one - forever? Really? Please explain your thought process.

 

[IanB]

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)


You guys keep your heads buried in the sand if that's what makes you happy. Just know that one of these days you'll figure out what's going on, and you'll wish you'd wised up years ago. "Land of the Free", that used to be what the USA stood for. They are taking your freedoms away at an alarming rate, and so many people can't be bothered to care.

 

[Carl_G]

In that case every lifted 4runner should be pulled over, but not lifted vehicles or toyotas in general.

The "APB" should be for lifted+4runner

Because every one is guaranteed to contain drugs, etc. Did I understand you correctly?

 

[4ganger]

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)


You guys keep your heads buried in the sand if that's what makes you happy. Just know that one of these days you'll figure out what's going on, and you'll wish you'd wised up years ago. "Land of the Free", that used to be what the USA stood for. They are taking your freedoms away at an alarming rate, and so many people can't be bothered to care.

Are you comparing a DUI checkpoint to the holocost?

Sorry but maybe I'm a bit thick... but what "freedom" we are losing by stopping at a legally set up administrative checkpoint and answering the intended quesiton?

The 4th Amend. protects us from unreasonable searches and seizure. As I've said the Supreme court long ago determined that administrative checkpoints are not unreasonable searches as long as they are done a certain way and intended to accomplish the stated goal(s).

When did we lose this freedom? It was when Chief Justice Rhenquist wrote the opinion in Michigan vs. Sitz (1990). Which is based on cases from the 70's. These things have been legal and found constitutional for some 30-40 years. As long as I've been alive pretty much. FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Oh and if you want to reverse this loosing of our rights we better start voting for democrats or independants b/c the conservtives on the court are the ones writing these opinions. Politics is weird like that sometimes.

 

[RunninInGA]

Are you comparing a DUI checkpoint to the holocost?

Sorry but maybe I'm a bit thick... but what "freedom" we are losing by stopping at a legally set up administrative checkpoint and answering the intended quesiton?

The 4th Amend. protects us from unreasonable searches and seizure. As I've said the Supreme court long ago determined that administrative checkpoints are not unreasonable searches as long as they are done a certain way and intended to accomplish the stated goal(s).

When did we lose this freedom? It was when Chief Justice Rhenquist wrote the opinion in Michigan vs. Sitz (1990). Which is based on cases from the 70's. These things have been legal and found constitutional for some 30-40 years. As long as I've been alive pretty much. FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Oh and if you want to reverse this loosing of our rights we better start voting for democrats or independants b/c the conservtives on the court are the ones writing these opinions. Politics is weird like that sometimes.

2 sides of the same coin, unfortunately.

 

[4ganger]

2 sides of the same coin, unfortunately.

3 sides? :guitar2:

Vote for what you beleive in.

 

[westwind77]

ALL reductions in rights and civil liberties for the common man are masked under the greater good scenario. Simple questions that involve the violation of rights and liberties ARE a problem - to me anyway. In my opinion, it is you, sir, that cannot see the bigger picture. Perhaps its a maturity issue, perhaps it's an experience issue, or perhaps you're just programmed to believe those in authority over you are right unequivocally (let me know if I should define that for you), however I choose to believe otherwise. Call it being a free thinker or an armchair patriot if you wish, however I resolve to guard my rights with jealous zest.

You do make me smile (laugh) with each of your posts. I don't need to use a thesaurus or quote drop from famous people to seem or feel that what I am doing is the right thing. I guess caring more about yourself than others is what the 'big picture' is all about to you. I do not mind the 'inconvenience' of a DUI check point as they help keep the roads safer for not only myself, but for other people as well. Maybe you don't have any friends, but I personally have a lot, and I would like to see them again, the less drunks on the road (or whomever else they catch), makes the roads safer for us all.

It seems there are a lot more people on this thread that seem to support the ideas of the checkpoints than do not, but you are the most outspoken of them all not in favor of them. Could that be because you go busted at one (who knows) or maybe you do see the G-men and big brother watching you, even in the bathroom in the near future, and you want to prevent it. This is America, you are free to think away, but you do have to use common sense now and then too. There are things that should be challenged, and things that should not be, this would be a 'not be' one issue.

It is obvious that no matter what anyone else says in this thread your views will not be swayed, and honestly part of me respects that. You do have a 'foundation' for your argument, but your 'jealous zest' would be best applied to something that really negatively affects the public in general, and that was not designed to save lives.

Seriously, for one minute, put aside all constitution, my rights, etc issues you have and answer me this......do you think getting drunk drivers off the road is important? I only see the DUI checkpoints around known drinking times (new years, 4th of july, labor day, memorial day, etc.), they are not out 7 days a week. Given the amount of people on the roads and the max amount of police any given town/city can deploy, the police are very out numbered and mostly have to wait for a citizen to report a drunk driver, then they have to get there to catch them, assuming they don't get into a wreck and kill someone in that time (the drunk, not the cop, which sadly happens a lot). Please, if you hate the DUI checkpoints so much, give me (us) a better suggestion, that does not violate 'your rights'. Sometimes we have to sacrifice a little for the greater good. Maybe 'your rights' are more important than your neighbor growing up with 2 parents, only you know that.

 

[theizzardking]

Are you comparing a DUI checkpoint to the holocost?

An Avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he a establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. – Thomas Paine (1795)


yeah yeah yeah goodwins, law, but regardless of that fact, he's right just because the sitting judges of the time ruled it as OK at the time doesn't make it constitutional , it's still a violation of our rights granted to us by the constitution , just one the supreme court will allow in the interest of public safety.....that doesn't make it right.....

you of all people should know the dangers of allowing precedents like this to be set, it's not just the single case, it's the extrapolation of that case, "you've allowed police to stop an individual without probable cause in order to obtain information the police deem fit in regards to a crime that hasn't been committed yet or may not be committed at all"

think about what that really means, and tell me that is not a moral and philosophical betrayal of our intended right given to us in the constitution?

what if the information they were gathering was in regards to your political and religious affiliations? would you be so inclined to answer then? i mean after all we got terrorism to fight just like we're fighting drunk driving......

people are so stupid, this facebook society sucks, you can't pick and choose your freedoms, having freedom also means having the freedom to make bad decisions and possibly be impacted by another persons bad choice, it's a risk you take being free, quit being such pussies, millions of soldiers and Innocent have died to give you freedom, don't give up the freedom they gave you to save a few more lives a year.... i'm willing to take teh risk of being killed by a drunk driver to preserve all aspects of the rights granted to me by the constitution


again:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin

have a ****ing spine people, no one likes drunk drivers, no one ever will, i personally have lost 8.....eight people close to me in 3 separate drinking and driving accidents starting from the age of 16, believe me when i say i'm against drunk driving, but i will not give up my rights in the name of safety from drunk drivers,terrorist, or even the mother ****ing government itself.......

 

[IanB]

Seriously, for one minute, put aside all constitution, my rights, etc issues you have and answer me this......do you think getting drunk drivers off the road is important? I only see the DUI checkpoints around known drinking times (new years, 4th of july, labor day, memorial day, etc.), they are not out 7 days a week. Given the amount of people on the roads and the max amount of police any given town/city can deploy, the police are very out numbered and mostly have to wait for a citizen to report a drunk driver, then they have to get there to catch them, assuming they don't get into a wreck and kill someone in that time (the drunk, not the cop, which sadly happens a lot). Please, if you hate the DUI checkpoints so much, give me (us) a better suggestion, that does not violate 'your rights'. Sometimes we have to sacrifice a little for the greater good. Maybe 'your rights' are more important than your neighbor growing up with 2 parents, only you know that.

Sure, it's important. You know what might work? Harsher penalties, so once caught they won't be given the opportunity to re-offend. What percentage of drunk drivers involved in accidents (lethal or not) are repeat offenders? I bet it's shockingly high, to the point you would wonder WTF the lawmakers are thinking allowing this to happen over and over again. And the best part, it only affects those who are guilty of something! Really cuts down on the amount of work the police have on their plates too.

 

[theizzardking]

You do make me smile (laugh) with each of your posts. I don't need to use a thesaurus or quote drop from famous people to seem or feel that what I am doing is the right thing. I guess caring more about yourself than others is what the 'big picture' is all about to you. I do not mind the 'inconvenience' of a DUI check point as they help keep the roads safer for not only myself, but for other people as well. Maybe you don't have any friends, but I personally have a lot, and I would like to see them again, the less drunks on the road (or whomever else they catch), makes the roads safer for us all.

i find using quotes is a good way to articulate thoughts that sometimes you are unable to express by yourself.....

this isn't a matter of inconvenience or not, it's a matter of liberties, do i mind stopping at the check point? do i mind answering the questions, no not really, but fundamentally it's wrong and strays in a dangerous direction from what our rights actually are.....and really this is more me caring about my fellow Americans, all 300 million of them and the future generations beyond that, then myself, like i said i don't mind, i'm not breaking the law and it takes a few minutes, but like most Americans you fail to see what this really means, you're blinded by what it does, when in the court of law and in re guards to our rights and freedoms what it means can often be much much bigger then what the particular case does....

and like i said i've lost people very close to me as well, and been pall bearer at more funerals then i care to remember because of D/D, but don't let the pain of your loss jade you from the intrusion on your civil liberties here.

i think we should put people who drink and drive in jail for 6 months mandatory first time no questions asked. if you kill someone drinking and driving i don't think 30 years is too much .....

basically why not just make the penlites for drinking and driving more harsh and scary and maybe a better way of reporting drunks with advertising to let people know who to call and how to report, bottom line there's probably a thousand other things they could come up with without random stops and questioning.......and really if your ok with being randomly stopped and asked questions, you should have your head checked, if this wasn't about drinking and driving everyone would be up in arms.....
that's it i'm out.......:beer::driving: (j/k lol)

 

[RunninInGA]

You do make me smile (laugh) with each of your posts. I don't need to use a thesaurus or quote drop from famous people to seem or feel that what I am doing is the right thing. I guess caring more about yourself than others is what the 'big picture' is all about to you. I do not mind the 'inconvenience' of a DUI check point as they help keep the roads safer for not only myself, but for other people as well. Maybe you don't have any friends, but I personally have a lot, and I would like to see them again, the less drunks on the road (or whomever else they catch), makes the roads safer for us all.

It seems there are a lot more people on this thread that seem to support the ideas of the checkpoints than do not, but you are the most outspoken of them all not in favor of them. Could that be because you go busted at one (who knows) or maybe you do see the G-men and big brother watching you, even in the bathroom in the near future, and you want to prevent it. This is America, you are free to think away, but you do have to use common sense now and then too. There are things that should be challenged, and things that should not be, this would be a 'not be' one issue.

It is obvious that no matter what anyone else says in this thread your views will not be swayed, and honestly part of me respects that. You do have a 'foundation' for your argument, but your 'jealous zest' would be best applied to something that really negatively affects the public in general, and that was not designed to save lives.

Seriously, for one minute, put aside all constitution, my rights, etc issues you have and answer me this......do you think getting drunk drivers off the road is important? I only see the DUI checkpoints around known drinking times (new years, 4th of july, labor day, memorial day, etc.), they are not out 7 days a week. Given the amount of people on the roads and the max amount of police any given town/city can deploy, the police are very out numbered and mostly have to wait for a citizen to report a drunk driver, then they have to get there to catch them, assuming they don't get into a wreck and kill someone in that time (the drunk, not the cop, which sadly happens a lot). Please, if you hate the DUI checkpoints so much, give me (us) a better suggestion, that does not violate 'your rights'. Sometimes we have to sacrifice a little for the greater good. Maybe 'your rights' are more important than your neighbor growing up with 2 parents, only you know that.

A thought provoking and intelligent response. Thank you. No, I have not been busted at a checkpoint - that is not my reason for protecting what I believe to be my rights. Please understand that my concerns are far greater than this singular topic. The video struck a chord with me and I decided to post it here to gather opinions and to take the opportunity to make others aware that just because they wear a badge and are in a position of authority, you do not have to comply to everything an officer of the government dictates. You argue it is within the law and necessary and that's your opinion. I argue that it is an invasion of my rights and that there are other more effective tactics that could be used, which is my opinion.

In answer to your question, I do agree that impaired driving of ALL kind is destructive - and that includes texting while driving (I'm sure some of you guys do that as well) and fiddling with radios. I see women applying makeup on the interstate every morning on my way to work - impaired wouldn't you say? I have offered several posts throughout this thread where I proposed solutions - those that do not infringe on the rights of otherwise law abiding citizens. We've also discussed that the effectiveness (quoted below again, pay particular attention to the last 2 paragraphs) of DUI checkpoints is far less than other tactics such as saturation patrols - however you and several others chose to ignore those statistics and have decided to attack me rather than analyze and comprehend the statistics presented. I understood this was going to be a touchy subject before I posted it. Most thought provoking subjects are. :twocents:

The Centers for Disease Control, in a 2002 Traffic Injury Prevention report, found that in general, the number of alcohol related crashes was reduced by 20% in states that implement sobriety checkpoints compared to those that do not.[13]

Public Health Law Research, an independent organization, reported in a 2009 evidence brief summarizing the research assessing the effect of a specific law or policy on public health, that there is strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of selective breath testing sobriety checkpoints as a public health intervention aimed at reducing the harms associated with alcohol impaired driving.[14]

The debate regarding saturation patrols versus checkpoints favors saturation patrols being more effective, both in terms of number of arrests and cost. The FBI compared saturation patrols vs. checkpoints in Ohio, Missouri, and Tennessee. The study showed that, “Overall, measured in arrests per hour, a dedicated saturation patrol is the most effective method of apprehending offenders.”[15] Another survey found that "States with infrequent checkpoints claimed a lack of funding and police resources for not conducting more checkpoints, preferred saturation patrols over checkpoints because they were more 'productive,' and used large number of police officers at checkpoints."[16]

There is a dearth of research regarding the deterrent effect of checkpoints. The only formally documented research regarding deterrence is a survey of Maryland's "Checkpoint Strikeforce" program. The survey found no deterrent effect: "To date, there is no evidence to indicate that this campaign, which involves a number of sobriety checkpoints and media activities to promote these efforts, has had any impact on public perceptions, driver behaviors, or alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes and injuries. This conclusion is drawn after examining statistics for alcohol-related crashes, police citations for impaired driving, and public perceptions of alcohol-impaired driving risk."

 

[4ganger]

The lizzardking you're not really looking at it correctly.

"you've allowed police to stop an individual without probable cause in order to obtain information the police deem fit in regards to a crime that hasn't been committed yet or may not be committed at all"

I disagree. They allow the police to set up a specific administrative check to accomplish a set goal and based on minimal intrustion. They achieve this by doing a balancing act btween your liberties and "minimally intrusive" question, document review or search. They are tyring to maintain libery while also maintaining the concept of an open and free society.

You cannot have it both ways.

By your own argument there should be no metal detectors, bag scan or ID check when boarding an airplane. You have no more right to baord an airplane vs. driving on the roads. If it is ok for one how do you argue it is ok for the other?

 

[RunninInGA]

Sure, it's important. You know what might work? Harsher penalties, so once caught they won't be given the opportunity to re-offend. What percentage of drunk drivers involved in accidents (lethal or not) are repeat offenders? I bet it's shockingly high, to the point you would wonder WTF the lawmakers are thinking allowing this to happen over and over again. And the best part, it only affects those who are guilty of something! Really cuts down on the amount of work the police have on their plates too.

In my state - ALL fatalities were caused by REPEAT OFFENDERS.

An Avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he a establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. – Thomas Paine (1795)


yeah yeah yeah goodwins, law, but regardless of that fact, he's right just because the sitting judges of the time ruled it as OK at the time doesn't make it constitutional , it's still a violation of our rights granted to us by the constitution , just one the supreme court will allow in the interest of public safety.....that doesn't make it right.....

you of all people should know the dangers of allowing precedents like this to be set, it's not just the single case, it's the extrapolation of that case, "you've allowed police to stop an individual without probable cause in order to obtain information the police deem fit in regards to a crime that hasn't been committed yet or may not be committed at all"

think about what that really means, and tell me that is not a moral and philosophical betrayal of our intended right given to us in the constitution?

what if the information they were gathering was in regards to your political and religious affiliations? would you be so inclined to answer then? i mean after all we got terrorism to fight just like we're fighting drunk driving......

people are so stupid, this facebook society sucks, you can't pick and choose your freedoms, having freedom also means having the freedom to make bad decisions and possibly be impacted by another persons bad choice, it's a risk you take being free, quit being such pussies, millions of soldiers and Innocent have died to give you freedom, don't give up the freedom they gave you to save a few more lives a year.... i'm willing to take teh risk of being killed by a drunk driver to preserve all aspects of the rights granted to me by the constitution


again:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin

have a ****ing spine people, no one likes drunk drivers, no one ever will, i personally have lost 8.....eight people close to me in 3 separate drinking and driving accidents starting from the age of 16, believe me when i say i'm against drunk driving, but i will not give up my rights in the name of safety from drunk drivers,terrorist, or even the mother ****ing government itself.......

Plus, you've set a precedent by allowing it here. The SC rules on precedents yes? It's ok here, so it must be ok over there.....

 

[ndcent]

12 pages later and I'm still going to have to go with...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WiX7GTelTPM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[4ganger]

Plus, you've set a precedent by allowing it here. The SC rules on precedents yes? It's ok here, so it must be ok over there.....

That's not what precedent means now how it is used by the US courts.


I suggest everyone in this thread go read the background and cliff's notes on the Federalists Papers with regard to the Bill of Rights and the 4th amendment.

It explains what the drafters of the constitution meant and intended. From there you'll have a better idea of what you are talking about in general.


however many pages later... And I still think the guy in the video is a douche.

 

[4ganger]

This all really boils down to what it says and what it means:

What it says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So is a DUI checkpoint an unreasonable search?

That is what this argument is about. Most of us say no it is not when balanced against stopping drunk driving. Some people disagree.

I guess that is why they make 4runners in so many different colors.

 

[theizzardking]

The lizzardking you're not really looking at it correctly.

"you've allowed police to stop an individual without probable cause in order to obtain information the police deem fit in regards to a crime that hasn't been committed yet or may not be committed at all"

I disagree. They allow the police to set up a specific administrative check to accomplish a set goal and based on minimal intrustion. They achieve this by doing a balancing act btween your liberties and "minimally intrusive" question, document review or search. They are tyring to maintain libery while also maintaining the concept of an open and free society.

good lawyer work, you said exactly what i said in different phrasing, it's still the same thing, like i said change the focus of their "goal" as you call it to something that's more inflammatory and everyone would be against this...

remember the so called Arizona racial profiling law that got turned down as being a volition of our rights? and that wasn't even aimed at citizens who are protected by the constitution.... it was the same thing as this but you had to commit a crime first before you could be questioned....you say i can't have it both ways? i say you can't have it both ways.........

why is it not ok to ask a motorist already pulled over for breaking the law ... if he's also breaking the law by being an illegal immigrant in arizonia...

and

why is it ok to stop a completely innocent person at random and ask them if they broke the law by drinking and driving...


they called the arizonia law racial profiling but the actual law didn't list any race, they just felt the slope was to slippery and would lead to racial profiling as far as i understand it, so why is this ok then? why is this not a slippery slope?

 

[RunninInGA]

The lizzardking you're not really looking at it correctly.

"you've allowed police to stop an individual without probable cause in order to obtain information the police deem fit in regards to a crime that hasn't been committed yet or may not be committed at all"

I disagree. They allow the police to set up a specific administrative check to accomplish a set goal and based on minimal intrustion. They achieve this by doing a balancing act btween your liberties and "minimally intrusive" question, document review or search. They are tyring to maintain libery while also maintaining the concept of an open and free society.

You cannot have it both ways.

By your own argument there should be no metal detectors, bag scan or ID check when boarding an airplane. You have no more right to baord an airplane vs. driving on the roads. If it is ok for one how do you argue it is ok for the other?

But DUI tickets aren't the only tickets they write at these checkpoints. Your argument isn't holding much water as it relates to the specific goal theory. I've known friends that get tint violation tickets, no proof of insurance tickets (before the state database), cracked windshield tickets, etc.